Cited by 134Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Can a decision support system accelerate rare disease diagnosis? Evaluating the potential impact of Ada DX in a retrospective study

Open access
Ronicke, Simon, Hirsch, Martin C., Türk, Ewelina, Larionov, Katharina, Tientcheu, Daphne, Wagner, Annette D.·2019·Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rare disease diagnosis is often delayed by years. A primary factor for this delay is a lack of knowledge and awareness regarding rare diseases. Probabilistic diagnostic decision support systems (DDSSs) have the potential to accelerate rare disease diagnosis by suggesting differential diagnoses for physicians based on case input and incorporated medical knowledge. We examine the DDSS prototype Ada DX and assess its potential to provide accurate rare disease suggestions early in the course of rare disease cases. RESULTS: Ada DX suggested the correct disease earlier than the time of clinical diagnosis among the top five fit disease suggestions in 53.8% of cases (50 of 93), and as the top fit disease suggestion in 37.6% of cases (35 of 93). The median advantage of correct disease suggestions compared to the time of clinical diagnosis was 3 months or 50% for top five fit and 1 month or 21% for top fit. The correct diagnosis was suggested at the first documented patient visit in 33.3% (top 5 fit), and 16.1% of cases (top fit), respectively. Wilcoxon signed-rank test shows a significant difference between the time to clinical diagnosis and the time to correct disease suggestion for both top five fit and top fit (z-score -6.68, respective -5.71, α=0.05, p-value <0.001). CONCLUSION: Ada DX provided accurate rare disease suggestions in most rare disease cases. In many cases, Ada DX provided correct rare disease suggestions early in the course of the disease, sometimes at the very beginning of a patient journey. The interpretation of these results indicates that Ada DX has the potential to suggest rare diseases to physicians early in the course of a case. Limitations of this study derive from its retrospective and unblinded design, data input by a single user, and the optimization of the knowledge base during the course of the study. Results pertaining to the system's accuracy should be interpreted cautiously. Whether the use of Ada DX reduces the time to diagnosis in rare diseases in a clinical setting should be validated in prospective studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13023-019-1040-6

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A retrospective study with a focus on rare diseases demonstrated that Ada suggested accurate diagnoses earlier than clinical diagnoses in more than half of all cases.

    “The DDSS prototype has been examined in a retrospective study with a focus on rare diseases, demonstrating that Ada suggested accurate diagnoses earlier than clinical diagnoses in more than half of all cases [12].”
  • The acceleration of rare disease diagnosis and the higher accuracy in the inpatient setting indicate that, in its current form, the DDSS is more suited to those disciplines.

    “The acceleration of rare disease diagnosis [12] and the higher accuracy in the inpatient setting also indicate that, in its current form, the DDSS is more suited to those disciplines.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ronicke, S., Hirsch, M. C., Türk, E., Larionov, K., Tientcheu, D., & Wagner, A. D.
Affiliations
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
Corresponding author
Ronicke, Simon
Venue
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Published
2019-03-21
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
69-69
ISSN
1750-1172 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2943735103
Cited by
134
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 5
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
rare diseases, diagnostic decision support systems, differential diagnosis, time to diagnosis, early diagnosis, probabilistic diagnosis, knowledge base, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Software, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Rare Diseases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review